Tyranny! Incest! – Entire Anti-Gay Right Wing Freaks Over Prop 8 News

Amid cries of “tyranny” and charges of incest and other stupid and ugly analogies, today the entire right wing of America freaked out on the news that once again a federal court determined that California’s Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Here is an assortment, for your enjoyment and amusement. We’ve taken the liberty of highlighting some of the key words for you.

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

“The ruling is like kissing your sister. On the one hand, it is not the broad ruling sought by same-sex marriage advocates but, on the other hand, it also does not allow the people of California to limit the name ‘marriage’ to opposite-sex couples. If there is any good news that comes out of this opinion, it is that it’s limited to California and does not apply to the other 49 states and territories. This ruling will not open the floodgates to same-sex marriage, as some advancing that cause had hoped. The court was clearly wrong in finding that there are no rational arguments to support limiting the name ‘marriage’ to opposite-sex couples. Surely California can limit the name ‘marriage’ to opposite-sex couples, even in the face of its broad domestic partnership law. Even though the ruling is narrow in scope, it is rulings like these that undermine the legitimacy of the judicial system.”

“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”

…

“Never before has a federal appeals court – or any federal court for that matter – found a right to gay marriage under the US Constitution,” said constitutional scholar John Eastman, who is chairman of NOM. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed. This issue is the Roe v Wade of the current generation, and I sincerely doubt the Court has the stomach for preempting the policy judgments of the states on such a contentious matter, knowing the lingering harm it caused by that ruling.”

The Family Leader

Today’s decision by theliberal 9th Circut Court, while expected, is sad and outrageous on many levels. Not least of which is “we the people” get bullied again by a few “robed masters.” It’s also evidence that when executives go wobbly on fighting the left’s agenda and not appointing ONLY strict constructionist judges, who take the Constitution and due process seriously, we continue to lose these battles. However, the 9th Circuit’s opinon is no surprise; they have been a friend of the radical homosexual agenda for years. As for us; we have only begun to and will continue to be in the fight!

Brian Raum, Alliance Defense Fund

We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage–tried in San Francisco–turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court. Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.

“Today’s ruling by a three-judge panel upheld a lower court decision by now-retired federal Judge Vaughn Walker in August 2010. Judge Walker later admitted he is himself a homosexual and has had a long-term partner, meaning that he potentially stood to personally benefit from the legalization of same-sex “‘marriage’.”

“Today’s decision was disappointing but not surprising, coming from the most liberal Circuit Court in the country. This Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country, may eventually reach the Supreme Court. This is not about constitutional governance but the insistence of a group of activists to force their will on their fellow citizens.

“This ruling substitute’s judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a ‘right’ to homosexual ‘marriage,’ and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.”

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced today that the Founding Fathers wrote homosexual ‘marriage’ rights into the U.S. Constitution, and overturned California’s Proposition 8 traditional marriage law, which had twice been passed by voters. The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves, since all of them believed sodomy was a crime, and certainly not a Constitutional right.

What strikes me is that none of the political gay-bashers quoted make any actual legal argument. They are all claiming that because the founding fathers did not say that they would specifically support marriage equality, that anti-marriage equality laws can not possibly be unconstitutional. That idea flies in the face of the history of laws in the U.S. The Founding Fathers also did not support mixed race marriages. And, "the will of the people," (cough) did subsequently often result in anti-miscegenation laws (which later were found unconstitutional). Unending shame in particular on Mitt Wrongmoney, for saying "I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.” That is such a stupid statement, coming from an aspiring president, then one's jaw drops, that he isn't embarrassed to say such a thing. judges do interpret the Constitution and other laws; that's for sure. But they interpret them, and have to explain their interpretations, in the light of the law, not in the light of "their own politics and prejudices." And let's not forget that Wrongmoney says he will amend the Constitution to forbid same sex marriages throughout the country. How is that, for acting with the Constitution according to one's "own politics and prejudices"? I should perhaps refrain from typing such a thing, but what comes to mind to say is "What an asshole."

tacitusFebruary 7, 2012 at 9:35 pm

Ninth Amendment to the constitution:

“The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.”